If the Keelback can, why canít Type 7?

So the Keelback ship can carry SLF and even got upgraded with a multicrew seat (though I doubt anyone uses multicrew anymore) then my question is.
Why can’t the type 7? It is like twice the size or length of the Keelback. Needs large landing pad.
To me it makes no sense it can’t have SLF... Also
i noticed that that the type 7 has one extra small hard point underneath, next to the other one.
So I’m kinda curious why it only has 4 small hard points when clearly it was designed to have 5.
Did the ship become too powerful or what is the deal Frontier?

So I personally think that if you ever plan on revisiting some of the older ships. Maybe you could consider
adding
SLF capability
One extra small hard point = 5 instead of 4.
seems kinda lame a ship that size is so weak.

look at the Asp Explore. two medium and 4 small and that one is mainly for exploring. Though i guess it is a multi purpose ship. But still.
Anyway just a suggestion to the type 7. It definitely has been upgraded with better power plant now so why not use it.

The Type-7 is a dedicated trading vessel, whereas the Keelback is a "combat trader" version of the Type-6.

It would make sense for a "combat trader" version of the Type-7 to have SLF capability, if Frontier ever make one, but not for the Type-7 itself.

True indeed. But type 9 is dedicated trader as well. That one has.. Also have you noticed the extra empty hard point slot underneath. Design wise looks like it was meant to have 5 hard points instead 4. Anyway thx for input. o7

It's largely because it wasn't designed with a fighter bay, and that's about it. You'd have to make a variant model that included a bay for it to be a possibility, and they don't want EVERY ship to carry fighters.

People have been asking for this since 2016 - before 2.2 Guardians even came out. I think the above is probably correct; all ships that have SLFs were deisigned to have them. The Type 7 wasn't. It would need a variant if it did, ŗ la Keelback. The Type 7 won't get one.

Well I guess that makes sense then. But what do you guys think about the extra hardpoint? Right now it has 4 small. But underneath next to the small hard point there is one extra but not in use... What do you think about that. Should they make that empty one active or just leave it. Curious to hear

Well I guess that makes sense then. But what do you guys think about the extra hardpoint? Right now it has 4 small. But underneath next to the small hard point there is one extra but not in use... What do you think about that. Should they make that empty one active or just leave it. Curious to hear

My guess is that enabling the fifth hardpoint would then make the power plant and distributor sizes seem even worse, so threads and posts would start popping up asking for buffs.

I'm not opposed to either since the T-7 is a terrible ship, any improvements would be nice. I still wouldn't use it for anything other than module storage though.

Well I guess that makes sense then. But what do you guys think about the extra hardpoint? Right now it has 4 small. But underneath next to the small hard point there is one extra but not in use... What do you think about that. Should they make that empty one active or just leave it. Curious to hear

I've never been able to figure out how to do much with this ship.
I can't even say it has potential for anything at this point.

I'd hope it was replaced with a different design (replaced as a new ship released, not to remove the old). Maybe but that is still a long shot but I don't even see NPCs using it much unless its a distress call or something

True indeed. But type 9 is dedicated trader as well. That one has.. Also have you noticed the extra empty hard point slot underneath. Design wise looks like it was meant to have 5 hard points instead 4. Anyway thx for input. o7

It's a dedicated trader that was designed from day one, even before SLF's were a thing, with a fighter bay.

Doubt there is any logical response to this....
I asked why the Imperial Clipper cant...

Shrug

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO GO AND SAY THIS BUT HERE WE GO AGAIN.

The clipper literally isn't wide enough for a fighter bay. The fighter bay is actually wider then the body of the clipper is. Ships like the python...have you not seen how thin that ship is? Look at the FGS and Keelback, both ships designed day one for SLF are both WIDE and TALL.

In order to get a SLF on the clipper, you'd literally have to redesign not just the internals of the ship, but the entire design of it. Not to mention you'd have to rebalance gameplay mechanics as well like internal space.

I don't know why people still think this is a thing.

And even for ships that "could" house an SLF...guess what, not every car made has every feature. Not every ship is going to have every feature either.

There's no logical reason for it to be added, people who think they should have it, aren't being realistic. They just want the feature.

The t7 is a dedicated trader, intended to be a step between the t6 and the python. What does the t6 have hardpoint wise? Does the python have a slf?

The t9 has an slf because it's used as a battle barge by some system navies, and also because it's easily large enough to carry one. I'm genuinely not sure that the t7's chassis' can handle an SLF bay. Besides, are you really gonna sacrifice the t7's already limited internal slots for an fighter bay? Why?

It's a dedicated trader that was designed from day one, even before SLF's were a thing, with a fighter bay.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO GO AND SAY THIS BUT HERE WE GO AGAIN.

The clipper literally isn't wide enough for a fighter bay. The fighter bay is actually wider then the body of the clipper is. Ships like the python...have you not seen how thin that ship is? Look at the FGS and Keelback, both ships designed day one for SLF are both WIDE and TALL.

In order to get a SLF on the clipper, you'd literally have to redesign not just the internals of the ship, but the entire design of it. Not to mention you'd have to rebalance gameplay mechanics as well like internal space.

I don't know why people still think this is a thing.

And even for ships that "could" house an SLF...guess what, not every car made has every feature. Not every ship is going to have every feature either.

There's no logical reason for it to be added, people who think they should have it, aren't being realistic. They just want the feature.

You keep saying it but I'd argue that your information isn't accurate.
Its larger than at least two of the ships that have hangers:

Are you going to tell me that the wings of a clipper should be included when talking about an SLF? Name ONE SHIP that has a SLF bay in the wings? Or has ANY PART of the hanger on the wings. You can't because they don't exist, no ship in the game has that. Every ship with SLF has them in the body.

Yeah "technically" it's wider if you include the wings but the BODY of the clipper is not. Go ahead, take the body of the clipper and compare it to the gunship or keelback.

"But the keelback is only 14 meters tall!"

Yes it is, and guess what? Nearly the entire body of the keelback is taken up by the fighter bay. So much space is taken up by it that it dramatically cuts into the total cargo space vs a Type6. The keelback was literally designed completely around the SLF. It's shorter (shorter as in height) then the python but every single bit of the ship was also designed around it.

The python, which is only about 5 meters taller wasn't. In order to add a SLF you would have to completely change the entire internals of the ship and re-arrange it. Sure you could do it, but then IT WOULDN'T BE THE PYTHON. It'd be a brand new ship.

So again, nothing I said was wrong. The clipper's body isn't wide enough and it's not tall enough to add an SLF without completely redesigining and rebalancing the ship. The same goes for other ships like the python.

And even for ships where it is possible like the type-7 it's not going to happen because again, you're redesigning, rebalancing, and then putting out a brand new ship. Even if the height and width permits it, you're still completely redoing a ship. It's like the difference between a stock mustang and one that's been supped up. Same car, completely different performance.

So no, I am not wrong. It's not possible to add them and still have the same ship.

When they were designed there wasn't a SLF bay built into the superstructure. Ships that can carry SLF were designed for that job since their creation. This will NOT change.

That is simply how things are.

Faulcon DeLacy never designed it to carry fighters and Lakon never designed the T-7 to carry fighters and Gutamaya never designed the Clipper to carry fighters. If they had they would have added 20 million to the price, reduced the cargo capacity, and decreased the jump range.

Are you going to tell me that the wings of a clipper should be included when talking about an SLF? Name ONE SHIP that has a SLF bay in the wings? Or has ANY PART of the hanger on the wings. You can't because they don't exist, no ship in the game has that. Every ship with SLF has them in the body.

Yeah "technically" it's wider if you include the wings but the BODY of the clipper is not. Go ahead, take the body of the clipper and compare it to the gunship or keelback.

"But the keelback is only 14 meters tall!"

Yes it is, and guess what? Nearly the entire body of the keelback is taken up by the fighter bay. So much space is taken up by it that it dramatically cuts into the total cargo space vs a Type6. The keelback was literally designed completely around the SLF. It's shorter (shorter as in height) then the python but every single bit of the ship was also designed around it.

The python, which is only about 5 meters taller wasn't. In order to add a SLF you would have to completely change the entire internals of the ship and re-arrange it. Sure you could do it, but then IT WOULDN'T BE THE PYTHON. It'd be a brand new ship.

So again, nothing I said was wrong. The clipper's body isn't wide enough and it's not tall enough to add an SLF without completely redesigining and rebalancing the ship. The same goes for other ships like the python.

And even for ships where it is possible like the type-7 it's not going to happen because again, you're redesigning, rebalancing, and then putting out a brand new ship. Even if the height and width permits it, you're still completely redoing a ship. It's like the difference between a stock mustang and one that's been supped up. Same car, completely different performance.

So no, I am not wrong. It's not possible to add them and still have the same ship.

When they were designed there wasn't a SLF bay built into the superstructure. Ships that can carry SLF were designed for that job since their creation. This will NOT change.

That is simply how things are.

Faulcon DeLacy never designed it to carry fighters and Lakon never designed the T-7 to carry fighters and Gutamaya never designed the Clipper to carry fighters. If they had they would have added 20 million to the price, reduced the cargo capacity, and decreased the jump range.

You design a ship around having a SLF, you don't add it in after it's been made.

Thanks for the details and while I do appreciate those its a game not an actual manufacturer who would need to recall and literally redesign ships.

I'm suggesting in your comments you are wrong regarding the ship not being of size to handle a hanger. None of that has anything to do with whats in the game right now as the conversation is around why X ship cant do Y in terms of the game.
The developers have already changed existing ships as well as even have upgraded module sizes and/or added modules, etc

I'm point blank saying according to what exists, the ship is large enough to have a hanger
Notice that per below, smaller ships have a hanger so its not due to size but at this time its just a developer decision.
(Edit) I included the Cutter as there is a video that points at the hanger taking up a large part of the bottom of the Cutter and that was the only suggestion so far but look again at the blue prints....is it really too small? (No)